Rucaparib or Physician's Choice in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 study, rucaparib, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), showed a high level of activity in patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA alteration. Data are needed to confirm and expand on the findings of the phase 2 study. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alteration and who had disease progression after treatment with a second-generation androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or a physician's choice control (docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI [abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide]). The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival according to independent review. RESULTS: Of the 4855 patients who had undergone prescreening or screening, 270 were assigned to receive rucaparib and 135 to receive a control medication (intention-to-treat population); in the two groups, 201 patients and 101 patients, respectively, had a BRCA alteration. At 62 months, the duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the rucaparib group than in the control group, both in the BRCA subgroup (median, 11.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.69) and in the intention-to-treat group (median, 10.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001 for both comparisons). In an exploratory analysis in the ATM subgroup, the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group and 6.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.52). The most frequent adverse events with rucaparib were fatigue and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer with rucaparib than with a control medication among patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA alteration. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; TRITON3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02975934.).

Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy. METHODS: At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P = 0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.).

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external beam radiotherapy and moderate hypofractionation is non-inferior to longer schedules. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows shorter treatment courses without impacting acute toxicity. We report 2-year toxicity findings from PACE-B, a randomised trial of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus SBRT. METHODS: PACE is an open-label, multicohort, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial conducted at 35 hospitals in the UK, Ireland, and Canada. In PACE-B, men aged 18 years and older with a WHO performance status 0-2 and low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded) were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group to control radiotherapy (CRT; 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or, following protocol amendment on March 24, 2016, 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Androgen deprivation was not permitted. Co-primary outcomes for this toxicity analysis were Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity at 24 months after radiotherapy. Analysis was by treatment received and included all patients with at least one fraction of study treatment assessed for late toxicity. Recruitment is complete. Follow-up for oncological outcomes continues. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. FINDINGS: We enrolled and randomly assigned 874 men between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018 (441 to CRT and 433 to SBRT). In this analysis, 430 patients were analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigned patients. At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was seen in eight (2%) of 381 participants assigned to CRT and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -1·3 to 4·0]; p=0·39); RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 11 (3%) of 382 participants in the CRT group versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference -1·3% [95% CI -3·9 to 1·1]; p=0·32). No serious adverse events (defined as RTOG grade 4 or worse) or treatment-related deaths were reported within the analysis timeframe. INTERPRETATION: In the PACE-B trial, 2-year RTOG toxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy. Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates of side-effects. Biochemical outcomes are awaited. FUNDING: Accuray.

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment [ProtecT] study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 50-69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. RESULTS: Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. CONCLUSION: Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes.

The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years' median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. RESULTS: Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man's lifetime. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed (n = 198) at a 10-year median follow-up were different from those of men with stable disease (n = 1409). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The findings showed that 34% of participants (n = 505) had intermediate- or high-risk PCa, and 66% (n = 973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression (P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low- and intermediate-/high-risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease (P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65-69 vs 50-64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression (P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery (n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate-/high-risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow-up are generalizable beyond men with low-risk PCa.

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity. FUNDING: Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer that is detected by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains uncertain. METHODS: We compared active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 1999 and 2009, a total of 82,429 men 50 to 69 years of age received a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo randomization to active monitoring (545 men), surgery (553), or radiotherapy (545). The primary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality at a median of 10 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the rates of disease progression, metastases, and all-cause deaths. RESULTS: There were 17 prostate-cancer-specific deaths overall: 8 in the active-monitoring group (1.5 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 3.0), 5 in the surgery group (0.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2), and 4 in the radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.0); the difference among the groups was not significant (P=0.48 for the overall comparison). In addition, no significant difference was seen among the groups in the number of deaths from any cause (169 deaths overall; P=0.87 for the comparison among the three groups). Metastases developed in more men in the active-monitoring group (33 men; 6.3 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 4.5 to 8.8) than in the surgery group (13 men; 2.4 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.2) or the radiotherapy group (16 men; 3.0 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.9) (P=0.004 for the overall comparison). Higher rates of disease progression were seen in the active-monitoring group (112 men; 22.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 19.0 to 27.5) than in the surgery group (46 men; 8.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 11.9) or the radiotherapy group (46 men; 9.0 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 12.0) (P<0.001 for the overall comparison). CONCLUSIONS: At a median of 10 years, prostate-cancer-specific mortality was low irrespective of the treatment assigned, with no significant difference among treatments. Surgery and radiotherapy were associated with lower incidences of disease progression and metastases than was active monitoring. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Measuring testosterone and testosterone replacement therapy in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: A survey of UK uro-oncologists' opinions and practice.

AIM: To explore the practice and attitudes of uro-oncologists in the UK regarding monitoring testosterone levels and the use of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in their prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS: An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by the members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG). RESULTS: Of 160 uro-oncologists invited, 84 completed the questionnaire. Before initiating ADT in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer, only 45% of respondents measured testosterone levels and 61% did not measure testosterone at all during ADT in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. However, in men with metastatic prostate cancer, 71% of the uro-oncologists measured testosterone before starting ADT and the majority continued testing during treatment. Approximately two-thirds of respondents did not prescribe TRT for their patients who were in remission following neo(adjuvant) ADT and who had castration levels of testosterone. DISCUSSION: Among UK uro-oncologists, the measurement of testosterone levels before and during ADT was not typically part of routine practice in the management of patients with prostate cancer. However, testosterone levels were checked more frequently for patients with metastatic disease than disease at an earlier stage. Testing could be conducted in parallel with PSA measurement as testosterone levels are linked to biochemical failure. The majority of specialists participating in the survey did not prescribe TRT for their patients in remission following ADT. CONCLUSION: Uro-oncologists in the UK do not generally measure testosterone as part of their patient management and they remain cautious about the possible benefits of TRT in men with prostate cancer.

National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.

OBJECTIVES: To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA-RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9-point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted 'agreement' for an item; for an item to reach 'consensus', a panel majority scoring was required. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid and strontium-89 as bone protecting treatments in addition to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer: results from the TRAPEZE trial (ISRCTN 12808747).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding zoledronic acid or strontium-89 to standard docetaxel chemotherapy for patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on resource use and quality of life for 707 patients collected prospectively in the TRAPEZE 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial (ISRCTN 12808747) were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of i) zoledronic acid versus no zoledronic acid (ZA vs. no ZA), and ii) strontium-89 versus no strontium-89 (Sr89 vs. no Sr89). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK and included expenditures for trial treatments, concomitant medications, and use of related hospital and primary care services. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated according to patients' responses to the generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L instrument, which evaluates health status. Results are expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The per-patient cost for ZA was £12 667, £251 higher than the equivalent cost in the no ZA group. Patients in the ZA group had on average 0.03 QALYs more than their counterparts in no ZA group. The ICER for this comparison was £8 005. Sr89 was associated with a cost of £13 230, £1365 higher than no Sr89, and a gain of 0.08 QALYs compared to no Sr89. The ICER for Sr89 was £16 884. The probabilities of ZA and Sr89 being cost-effective were 0.64 and 0.60, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bone-targeting treatments to standard chemotherapy led to a small improvement in QALYs for a modest increase in cost (or cost-savings). ZA and Sr89 resulted in ICERs below conventional willingness-to-pay per QALY thresholds, suggesting that their addition to chemotherapy may represent a cost-effective use of resources.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Enhancement of T cell responses as a result of synergy between lower doses of radiation and T cell stimulation.

As a side effect of cancer radiotherapy, immune cells receive varying doses of radiation. Whereas high doses of radiation (>10 Gy) can lead to lymphopenia, lower radiation doses (2-4 Gy) represent a valid treatment option in some hematological cancers, triggering clinically relevant immunological changes. Based on our earlier observations, we hypothesized that lower radiation doses have a direct positive effect on T cells. In this study, we show that 0.6-2.4 Gy radiation enhances proliferation and IFN-γ production of PBMC or purified T cells induced by stimulation via the TCR. Radiation with 1.2 Gy also lowered T cell activation threshold and broadened the Th1 cytokine profile. Although radiation alone did not activate T cells, when followed by TCR stimulation, ERK1/2 and Akt phosphorylation increased above that induced by stimulation alone. These changes were followed by an early increase in glucose uptake. Naive (CD45RA(+)) or memory (CD45RA(-)) T cell responses to stimulation were boosted at similar rates by radiation. Whereas increased Ag-specific cytotoxic activity of a CD8(+) T cell line manifested in a 4-h assay (10-20% increase), highly significant (5- to 10-fold) differences in cytokine production were detected in 6-d Ag-stimulation assays of PBMC, probably as a net outcome of death of nonstimulated and enhanced response of Ag-stimulated T cells. T cells from patients receiving pelvic radiation (2.2-2.75 Gy) also displayed increased cytokine production when stimulated in vitro. We report in this study enhanced T cell function induced by synergistic radiation treatment, with potential physiological significance in a wide range of T cell responses.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biosynthesis of extragonadal androgen may contribute to the progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated whether abiraterone acetate, an inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have received chemotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 1195 patients who had previously received docetaxel to receive 5 mg of prednisone twice daily with either 1000 mg of abiraterone acetate (797 patients) or placebo (398 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (elevation in the PSA level according to prespecified criteria), progression-free survival according to radiologic findings based on prespecified criteria, and the PSA response rate. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, overall survival was longer in the abiraterone acetate-prednisone group than in the placebo-prednisone group (14.8 months vs. 10.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.77; P<0.001). Data were unblinded at the interim analysis, since these results exceeded the preplanned criteria for study termination. All secondary end points, including time to PSA progression (10.2 vs. 6.6 months; P<0.001), progression-free survival (5.6 months vs. 3.6 months; P<0.001), and PSA response rate (29% vs. 6%, P<0.001), favored the treatment group. Mineralocorticoid-related adverse events, including fluid retention, hypertension, and hypokalemia, were more frequently reported in the abiraterone acetate-prednisone group than in the placebo-prednisone group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of androgen biosynthesis by abiraterone acetate prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who previously received chemotherapy. (Funded by Cougar Biotechnology; COU-AA-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00638690.).

Gemcitabine-based or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. FINDINGS: 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an alternative to surgery for the curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. The SCOPE1 trial aimed to investigate the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based definitive CRT in patients with localised oesophageal squamous-cell cancer and adenocarcinomas to assess activity, safety, and feasibility of use. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older from UK radiotherapy centres who had non-metastatic, histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or undifferentiated; WHO status 0-1; stage I-III disease) and been selected to receive definitive CRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central computerised system using stratified minimisation (with an 80:20 random element) to receive CRT alone or CRT with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly), stratified by recruiting hospital, primary reason for not having surgery, tumour histology, and tumour stage. CRT consisted of cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-21) for four cycles; cycles three and four were given concurrently with 50 Gy in 25 fractions of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were treatment failure free at week 24 for the phase 2 trial and overall survival for the phase 3 trial, both measured from randomisation. We analysed data by intention to treat. This trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 47718479. FINDINGS: 258 patients (129 assigned to each treatment group) from 36 UK centres were recruited between Feb 7, 2008, and Feb 22, 2012. Recruitment was stopped without continuation to phase 3 because the trial met criteria for futility, but we continued to follow-up recruited patients until all had reached at least 24-week follow-up (median follow-up of patients who survived was 16.8 months [IQR 11.2-24.5]). Fewer patients were treatment failure free at 24 weeks in the CRT plus cetuximab group (79 of 119 patients [66·4%, 90% CI 58·6-73·6]) than in the CRT only group (93 of 121 patients [76.9%, 69.7-83.0]). The CRT plus cetuximab group also had shorter median overall survival (22.1 months [95% CI 15.1-24.5] vs 25.4 months [20.5-37.9]; adjusted HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27]; p=0.035). Patients who received CRT plus cetuximab had more non-haematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities (102 [79%] of 129 patients vs 81 [63%] of 129 patients; p=0.004). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were low white blood cell count (14 [11%] in the CRT plus cetuximab group vs 21 [16%] in the CRT only group), low absolute neutrophil count (15 [12%] vs 24 [19%]), fatigue (26 [20%] vs 25 [19%]), and dysphagia (35 [27%] vs 37 [29%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy cannot be recommended for patients with oesophageal cancer suitable for definitive CRT. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Multi-institutional evaluation of a Pareto navigation guided automated radiotherapy planning solution for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current automated planning solutions are calibrated using trial and error or machine learning on historical datasets. Neither method allows for the intuitive exploration of differing trade-off options during calibration, which may aid in ensuring automated solutions align with clinical preference. Pareto navigation provides this functionality and offers a potential calibration alternative. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated radiotherapy planning solution with a novel multi-dimensional Pareto navigation calibration interface across two external institutions for prostate cancer. METHODS: The implemented 'Pareto Guided Automated Planning' (PGAP) methodology was developed in RayStation using scripting and consisted of a Pareto navigation calibration interface built upon a 'Protocol Based Automatic Iterative Optimisation' planning framework. 30 previous patients were randomly selected by each institution (IA and IB), 10 for calibration and 20 for validation. Utilising the Pareto navigation interface automated protocols were calibrated to the institutions' clinical preferences. A single automated plan (VMATAuto) was generated for each validation patient with plan quality compared against the previously treated clinical plan (VMATClinical) both quantitatively, using a range of DVH metrics, and qualitatively through blind review at the external institution. RESULTS: PGAP led to marked improvements across the majority of rectal dose metrics, with Dmean reduced by 3.7 Gy and 1.8 Gy for IA and IB respectively (p < 0.001). For bladder, results were mixed with low and intermediate dose metrics reduced for IB but increased for IA. Differences, whilst statistically significant (p < 0.05) were small and not considered clinically relevant. The reduction in rectum dose was not at the expense of PTV coverage (D98% was generally improved with VMATAuto), but was somewhat detrimental to PTV conformality. The prioritisation of rectum over conformality was however aligned with preferences expressed during calibration and was a key driver in both institutions demonstrating a clear preference towards VMATAuto, with 31/40 considered superior to VMATClinical upon blind review. CONCLUSIONS: PGAP enabled intuitive adaptation of automated protocols to an institution's planning aims and yielded plans more congruent with the institution's clinical preference than the locally produced manual clinical plans.

Development and Characterisation of a New Patient-Derived Xenograft Model of AR-Negative Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

As the treatment landscape for prostate cancer gradually evolves, the frequency of treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) and double-negative prostate cancer (DNPC) that is deficient for androgen receptor (AR) and neuroendocrine (NE) markers has increased. These prostate cancer subtypes are typically refractory to AR-directed therapies and exhibit poor clinical outcomes. Only a small range of NEPC/DNPC models exist, limiting our molecular understanding of this disease and hindering our ability to perform preclinical trials exploring novel therapies to treat NEPC/DNPC that are urgently needed in the clinic. Here, we report the development of the CU-PC01 PDX model that represents AR-negative mCRPC with PTEN/RB/PSMA loss and CTNN1B/TP53/BRCA2 genetic variants. The CU-PC01 model lacks classic NE markers, with only focal and/or weak expression of chromogranin A, INSM1 and CD56. Collectively, these findings are most consistent with a DNPC phenotype. Ex vivo and in vivo preclinical studies revealed that CU-PC01 PDX tumours are resistant to mCRPC standard-of-care treatments enzalutamide and docetaxel, mirroring the donor patient's treatment response. Furthermore, short-term CU-PC01 tumour explant cultures indicate this model is initially sensitive to PARP inhibition with olaparib. Thus, the CU-PC01 PDX model provides a valuable opportunity to study AR-negative mCRPC biology and to discover new treatment avenues for this hard-to-treat disease.